Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis reported the latest horror from the FCC:

By a one-vote margin, the committee defeated an attempt to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite.

Listen: The First Amendment should prohibit what the FCC already does to TV and radio but, of course, its regulation and censorship is kept in place by the flimsy tissue of the idea that these are the scarce "public airwaves." Well, cable and satellite are not public property; they are private property. If the government goes in to regulate and censor what happens there, then there is nothing stopping them from regulating and censoring books, music, concerts, comedy clubs... and the Internet.

I'll put it to the Howard Stern haters this way: assume he's off the air and you're all happy. Do you really think the hard core activists who've been after Howard Stern all these years are going to just pack up and go home? I think they'll view it as a good first step. They have been trying to censor the Internet for many years now, and a victory over Howard Stern will only embolden them. That is why I call him the canary in the mine. But Howard is not as intrusive as a canary, because you don't have to hear him sing. You can turn off your radio!

On the other hand there's at least one optimist, Reid Stott (link via Glenn Reynolds), who thinks this is mainly a matter of Howard Stern "crying wolf", that he's been kvetching for years, and will stay on the air.

Let's hope he's right -- because, wolf-cryer or not*, I want Howard to remain on the air!

While I am at it, I have to disagree with Mr. Stott that Jeff Jarvis' refusal to spell out the "F" word (and his deletion of expletive-laced comments) makes him guilty of the same censorship he condemns:

“F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel.”

This really gets me. Jeff shortens the word he really wants to use to “F”. As is his right on his site. He also has been known to delete comments from others that spell out the “F” word. As is his right on his site. But those acts imply that there are certain lines you just don’t cross, when you are speaking to the public. Not out of worry about fines or “censorship,” but out of decency. And on his site, they are lines that are enforceable, free speech or not.

Yet in an update, Jeff adds: “I abhor this culture of offense. We are becoming ruled by what offends a few of us. If it’s offends somebody, then it must be wrong and it must be shut up. Well, I don’t need anyone -- government or corporate nanny -- to protect me from that which might offend me.”

Then why not just spell out the “F” word when you write, Jeff? Why do you delete the comments of others that use the word? Because your son might read the site, and it’s not appropriate content for him? Well, a lot of people feel the same way about their morning radio.

I see a logical problem in analogizing between a talk radio show and a blog. Jeff Jarvis has every right to use or not use the "F" word, and if he decides to allow comments, they become part of his blog, and if he doesn't use the "F" word (or the "N" word, or any other word), why, he is free to delete or edit the comments in any manner he pleases. No one is standing over him saying he must do either.

Many times I have read Jeff's reminder to those who disagree with his comments policy -- "START YOUR OWN BLOG!" Self censorship is not censorship at all, because no one is making you do anything. (And, if you think about it, any time you say something or don't say something, you're engaged in "self censorship.") The only blogger analogy to Howard Stern which might make sense to me would be, say, a blogger told to censor something by means of a legal or government threat. (Like Robert Cox.)

In fact, Jeff Jarvis and Howard Stern already do pretty much the same thing. If Jeff doesn't like a comment, or finds it offensive, he deletes it. (Many bloggers don't allow comments at all.) If, for whatever reason, Howard Stern does not like a caller, he doesn't put him on the air. If the caller says something that they don't want to go out, Stern's people have eight seconds (now I guess it's being upped to five minutes in some places) to "delete" it. Once it goes out over the air, the "damage" is considered done. And unlike something which goes out on the Internet, there is no way to un-say it. (Although even in the Internet, there are ways of retrieving things that were "un-said.")

But no one -- yet -- has the right to censor Jeff Jarvis, or me. That's the crucial difference. I dislike censorship by others, whether corporations or governments. If my ISP decided it hated me and my blog, and refused to provide me with service, and there existed a list of "NO SERVICE ALLOWED" blogs, I would be effectively censored. They can't do it now, but I believe there are people who want them to be able to do it, and are seriously working on it. (Suppose Verizon and Comcast decided to prohibit certain blogs from being accessed as SonicWALL does?) The taking out of Howard Stern will embolden them, and as I've said before, harm the quality of my life.

What is it about turning off the radio that people cannot seem to understand? There are numerous web sites which offend me. I can visit them and get all apoplectic, or I can decide not to visit them. Why should radio be any different?

And what is "public" about the airwaves that isn't "public" about the Internet?

One ray of hope: so far Howard Stern is not losing advertisers.

* At Reid Stott's blog, I posted the following comment about crying wolf (which I hope I am not doing by reprinting it here):

The long list of Howard Stern’s incidents of indecency proves mainly that he has been indecent for a long time. I have been a daily listener for ten years, but I have never seen anything resembling this -- being yanked off six stations simultaneously while his enemies yell for shutting him down completely. Your central argument is that it’s nothing new. Well, it’s new to me, and I don’t like it, because I want to listen to Howard Stern, and because I don’t think the drive for “cleaning up the airwaves” will stop with him.

Much is made of Howard crying wolf, although it’s obvious you realize that is part of his shtick. Yet in logic, crying wolf has nothing to do with the presence or absence of an actual wolf. The legend itself is a lesson in warning people not to complain about things which aren’t really happening. The fact is that people who kvetch about “persecution” ARE sometimes persecuted. (I hope you don’t think that unfounded complaints justify genuine persecution.)

I hope you are right in your assessment that none of this will amount to anything, because I don’t want to lose Howard Stern, who I think is one of the most original, most refreshing artists in the country. If you are right, then he’s a boy crying wolf. If you are wrong, then my quality of life will suffer, because I won’t be able to turn on my radio in the morning and wake up to him.

Those who don’t like Howard Stern don’t have to listen to him, so their quality of life will not be affected either way. (Except, I guess, for the small minority whose quality of life improves if others are prevented from hearing what they hate.)

Sometimes I wonder whether much of this argument is driven by whether people like Howard Stern or not. People who like him don’t like what is happening, while people who hate him think it’s great. (The rest being largely window dressing.)

There’s nothing worse than a self-proclaimed outlaw, a envelope-pushing risk taker, who cries like ten thousand babies when the perfectly logical consequences hit him in the ass every few years or so.

"WAAAAAAAHHHH!"

That wasn't long enough.....

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!"

Once more:

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

(There are some good comments there, and Mr. Stott has done an excellent job of sticking to his guns. I plan to stick to mine, too!)